The interdependence of consciousness and nama-rupa kind of covers the whole thing in a way.

I suggested earlier in the thread that nama-rupa represents everything we can be conscious of, ie the objects of consciousness, ie the aggregates of rupa, sanna, vedana and sankharas.

I noticed, sir! That's generally how I understand it, but I avoid making equivalences with the aggregates because I'm simply unsure.

If we bracket out Nibbana for now, on this reading Vinnana--Nama-Rupa is basically "all possible phenomena." What I find perplexing is connecting the 3rd and 4th links with the sense bases on this reading, as it seems to make the sense bases redundant. There was a thread a long time ago discussing this, I think some people argued the sense bases are assumed within nama-rupa sometimes. Maybe there was a sutta that actually omitted them too?

Also, I do take note of DooDoot's great points above and sometimes wonder.

EDIT:

aflatun' wrote:"Maybe there was a sutta that actually omitted them too?"

Yeah, its DN15 lol. Sorry!

DN 15 wrote:“It was said: ‘With mentality-materiality as condition there is contact.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body were all absent, would designation-contact be discerned in the material body?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the material body were all absent, would impingement-contact be discerned in the mental body?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body and the material body were all absent, would either designation-contact or impingement-contact be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of mentality-materiality were all absent, would contact be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for contact, namely, mentality-materiality.

"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Sujato : The Buddha went a step further, showing that consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that.
Thus the notion of nāmarūpa is evolving and shifting through this philosophical evolution. It is losing its connection with magic and pre-rational thought, and becoming a rational, psychological idea. This shift is present within the EBTs, which enable us to trace the connections backwards through the Upanishads to magic, and forwards to the hyper-rational explanations of the Abhidhamma, where the connection with magical thinking is lost entirely.

P/s : Nothing , really , he didn't define it .

If you think he already defined it , then do elaborate it so that we all can have a true understanding .

Otherwise , I don't think you get it either .What do you mean by namarupa exactly ?

Anyway , don't get me wrong , I am not being disrespectful .

Ven Sujato sounds lost in scholarly philosophy to me. Lost in Brahmanism, lost in different suttas, lost in Abhidhamma; trying to decide on a philosophical position instead of meditating upon the reality of it. Since so many suttas refer to the arising of consciousness dependent on sense organ & sense object, its seems Sujato's idea of "awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is not always contextually correct but, again, only valid from the perspective of DN 15.

Sujato wrote:This is an Abhidhamma term, which means “the knowledge of distinguishing between mind and body”.

It relies on the strictly Abhidhamma interpretation of nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all.

Warning: using the Abhidhamma to understand the suttas will only lead to weariness and vexation! You will have to learn a bunch of complicated stuff, and then spend years unlearning it! Like I did!

Sujato wrote:

Brahmali wrote:The nature of the other four aggregates (nāma-rūpa)

It’s so lovely to see you advocating for the Abhidhammic equation of the four khandhas with nāmarūpa!

I recall in one of his books he suggested the common view the Digha Nikaya was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract converts to the new religion." Yet now he appears to have settled on the Digha Nikaya version of nama-rupa intended to convert non-Buddhists (primarily Brahmans) to Buddhism. His idea that "nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all" I think has been refuted many times in this thread.

A major problem with Sujato's idea: "consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is that it appears to not accommodate for when an external stimuli is experienced for the very 1st time, i.e., an external stimuli that is without any prior known concept and designation. Obviously, consciousness occurs 1st and the concept is formed later, as described in MN 18:

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.

MN 18

As a teacher of concept-less jhana, I think Ven. Sujato may have possibly contradicted his own jhana views by asserting consciousness evolves together with concepts and designations. Since nirodha-samāpatti is the cessation of consciousness together with the cessation of perception & feeling, it seems consciousness may at the very least depend on perception & feeling but not on concepts and designations. Sujato seems to assert the subtle vitakka & vicara of the 1st jhana are not gross concepts & designations, thus Sujato seems to say there are no concepts & designations in the 1st jhana; let alone in the other jhanas. Therefore, for Sujato to claim consciousness always depends on concepts & designations, it seems Ven. Sujato, to not contradict himself, would need to claim there is no consciousness in jhana.

In summary, SN 12.2 clearly says 'nama' is feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention and 'rupa' is the form comprised of the four physical elements. DN 15 appears to say 'nama-rupa' is 'concepts & designations'. Therefore, it seems obvious a person can choose to follow either SN 12.2 or DN 15. I think that the preeminent translator Bhikkhu Bodhi has spent his career flip-flopping between 'mentality-materiality' and 'name-form' and that co-religionists Sujato & Brahmali cannot agree or co-Sangha like Sumedho & Amaro have different ideas about nama-rupa or that Thanissaro also flips & flops shows most Buddhists can't agree on it.

Sujato : The Buddha went a step further, showing that consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that.
Thus the notion of nāmarūpa is evolving and shifting through this philosophical evolution. It is losing its connection with magic and pre-rational thought, and becoming a rational, psychological idea. This shift is present within the EBTs, which enable us to trace the connections backwards through the Upanishads to magic, and forwards to the hyper-rational explanations of the Abhidhamma, where the connection with magical thinking is lost entirely.

P/s : Nothing , really , he didn't define it .

If you think he already defined it , then do elaborate it so that we all can have a true understanding .

Otherwise , I don't think you get it either .What do you mean by namarupa exactly ?

Anyway , don't get me wrong , I am not being disrespectful .

Ven Sujato sounds lost in scholarly philosophy to me. Lost in Brahmanism, lost in different suttas, lost in Abhidhamma; trying to decide on a philosophical position instead of meditating upon the reality of it. Since so many suttas refer to the arising of consciousness dependent on sense organ & sense object, its seems Sujato's idea of "awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is not always contextually correct but, again, only valid from the perspective of DN 15.

Sujato wrote:This is an Abhidhamma term, which means “the knowledge of distinguishing between mind and body”.

It relies on the strictly Abhidhamma interpretation of nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all.

Warning: using the Abhidhamma to understand the suttas will only lead to weariness and vexation! You will have to learn a bunch of complicated stuff, and then spend years unlearning it! Like I did!

Sujato wrote:

Brahmali wrote:The nature of the other four aggregates (nāma-rūpa)

It’s so lovely to see you advocating for the Abhidhammic equation of the four khandhas with nāmarūpa!

I recall in one of his books he suggested the common view the Digha Nikaya was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract converts to the new religion." Yet now he appears to have settled on the Digha Nikaya version of nama-rupa intended to convert non-Buddhists (primarily Brahmans) to Buddhism. His idea that "nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all" I think has been refuted many times in this thread.

A major problem with Sujato's idea: "consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is that it appears to not accommodate for when an external stimuli is experienced for the very 1st time, i.e., an external stimuli that is without any prior known concept and designation. Obviously, consciousness occurs 1st and the concept is formed later, as described in MN 18:

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.

MN 18

As a teacher of concept-less jhana, I think Ven. Sujato may have possibly contradicted his own jhana views by asserting consciousness evolves together with concepts and designations. Since nirodha-samāpatti is the cessation of consciousness together with the cessation of perception & feeling, it seems consciousness may at the very least depend on perception & feeling but not on concepts and designations. Sujato seems to assert the subtle vitakka & vicara of the 1st jhana are not gross concepts & designations, thus Sujato seems to say there are no concepts & designations in the 1st jhana; let alone in the other jhanas. Therefore, for Sujato to claim consciousness always depends on concepts & designations, it seems Ven. Sujato, to not contradict himself, would need to claim there is no consciousness in jhana.

In summary, SN 12.2 clearly says 'nama' is feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention and 'rupa' is the form comprised of the four physical elements. DN 15 appears to say 'nama-rupa' is 'concepts & designations'. Therefore, it seems obvious a person can choose to follow either SN 12.2 or DN 15. I think that the preeminent translator Bhikkhu Bodhi has spent his career flip-flopping between 'mentality-materiality' and 'name-form' and that co-religionists Sujato & Brahmali cannot agree or co-Sangha like Sumedho & Amaro have different ideas about nama-rupa or that Thanissaro also flips & flops shows most Buddhists can't agree on it.

By the way , I am thinking that DN15 could be a Late sutta !
Therefore , was corrupted IMO .

Well , at least Brahmali stick to the definition , namarupa=four Khandas .

Namarupa actually refers to "the processes" , not as a "static" something .

Sujato : The Buddha went a step further, showing that consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that.
Thus the notion of nāmarūpa is evolving and shifting through this philosophical evolution. It is losing its connection with magic and pre-rational thought, and becoming a rational, psychological idea. This shift is present within the EBTs, which enable us to trace the connections backwards through the Upanishads to magic, and forwards to the hyper-rational explanations of the Abhidhamma, where the connection with magical thinking is lost entirely.

P/s : Nothing , really , he didn't define it .

If you think he already defined it , then do elaborate it so that we all can have a true understanding .

Otherwise , I don't think you get it either .What do you mean by namarupa exactly ?

Anyway , don't get me wrong , I am not being disrespectful .

Ven Sujato sounds lost in scholarly philosophy to me. Lost in Brahmanism, lost in different suttas, lost in Abhidhamma; trying to decide on a philosophical position instead of meditating upon the reality of it. Since so many suttas refer to the arising of consciousness dependent on sense organ & sense object, its seems Sujato's idea of "awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is not always contextually correct but, again, only valid from the perspective of DN 15.

Sujato wrote:This is an Abhidhamma term, which means “the knowledge of distinguishing between mind and body”.

It relies on the strictly Abhidhamma interpretation of nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all.

Warning: using the Abhidhamma to understand the suttas will only lead to weariness and vexation! You will have to learn a bunch of complicated stuff, and then spend years unlearning it! Like I did!

Sujato wrote:It’s so lovely to see you advocating for the Abhidhammic equation of the four khandhas with nāmarūpa!

I recall in one of his books he suggested the common view the Digha Nikaya was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract converts to the new religion." Yet now he appears to have settled on the Digha Nikaya version of nama-rupa intended to convert non-Buddhists (primarily Brahmans) to Buddhism. His idea that "nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all" I think has been refuted many times in this thread.

A major problem with Sujato's idea: "consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is that it appears to not accommodate for when an external stimuli is experienced for the very 1st time, i.e., an external stimuli that is without any prior known concept and designation. Obviously, consciousness occurs 1st and the concept is formed later, as described in MN 18:

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.

MN 18

As a teacher of concept-less jhana, I think Ven. Sujato may have possibly contradicted his own jhana views by asserting consciousness evolves together with concepts and designations. Since nirodha-samāpatti is the cessation of consciousness together with the cessation of perception & feeling, it seems consciousness may at the very least depend on perception & feeling but not on concepts and designations. Sujato seems to assert the subtle vitakka & vicara of the 1st jhana are not gross concepts & designations, thus Sujato seems to say there are no concepts & designations in the 1st jhana; let alone in the other jhanas. Therefore, for Sujato to claim consciousness always depends on concepts & designations, it seems Ven. Sujato, to not contradict himself, would need to claim there is no consciousness in jhana.

In summary, SN 12.2 clearly says 'nama' is feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention and 'rupa' is the form comprised of the four physical elements. DN 15 appears to say 'nama-rupa' is 'concepts & designations'. Therefore, it seems obvious a person can choose to follow either SN 12.2 or DN 15. I think that the preeminent translator Bhikkhu Bodhi has spent his career flip-flopping between 'mentality-materiality' and 'name-form' and that co-religionists Sujato & Brahmali cannot agree or co-Sangha like Sumedho & Amaro have different ideas about nama-rupa or that Thanissaro also flips & flops shows most Buddhists can't agree on it.

By the way , I am thinking that DN15 could be a Late sutta !
Therefore , was corrupted IMO .

Well , at least Brahmali stick to the definition , namarupa=four Khandas .

Namarupa actually refers to "the processes" , not as a "static" something .

All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.

Ven Sujato sounds lost in scholarly philosophy to me. Lost in Brahmanism, lost in different suttas, lost in Abhidhamma; trying to decide on a philosophical position instead of meditating upon the reality of it. Since so many suttas refer to the arising of consciousness dependent on sense organ & sense object, its seems Sujato's idea of "awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is not always contextually correct but, again, only valid from the perspective of DN 15.

I recall in one of his books he suggested the common view the Digha Nikaya was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract converts to the new religion." Yet now he appears to have settled on the Digha Nikaya version of nama-rupa intended to convert non-Buddhists (primarily Brahmans) to Buddhism. His idea that "nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all" I think has been refuted many times in this thread.

A major problem with Sujato's idea: "consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is that it appears to not accommodate for when an external stimuli is experienced for the very 1st time, i.e., an external stimuli that is without any prior known concept and designation. Obviously, consciousness occurs 1st and the concept is formed later, as described in MN 18:

As a teacher of concept-less jhana, I think Ven. Sujato may have possibly contradicted his own jhana views by asserting consciousness evolves together with concepts and designations. Since nirodha-samāpatti is the cessation of consciousness together with the cessation of perception & feeling, it seems consciousness may at the very least depend on perception & feeling but not on concepts and designations. Sujato seems to assert the subtle vitakka & vicara of the 1st jhana are not gross concepts & designations, thus Sujato seems to say there are no concepts & designations in the 1st jhana; let alone in the other jhanas. Therefore, for Sujato to claim consciousness always depends on concepts & designations, it seems Ven. Sujato, to not contradict himself, would need to claim there is no consciousness in jhana.

In summary, SN 12.2 clearly says 'nama' is feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention and 'rupa' is the form comprised of the four physical elements. DN 15 appears to say 'nama-rupa' is 'concepts & designations'. Therefore, it seems obvious a person can choose to follow either SN 12.2 or DN 15. I think that the preeminent translator Bhikkhu Bodhi has spent his career flip-flopping between 'mentality-materiality' and 'name-form' and that co-religionists Sujato & Brahmali cannot agree or co-Sangha like Sumedho & Amaro have different ideas about nama-rupa or that Thanissaro also flips & flops shows most Buddhists can't agree on it.

By the way , I am thinking that DN15 could be a Late sutta !
Therefore , was corrupted IMO .

Well , at least Brahmali stick to the definition , namarupa=four Khandas .

Namarupa actually refers to "the processes" , not as a "static" something .

All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.

Ultimately yes , all view still a view only .
When you write this , there is something going on in your head , is not this intellectual comprehension ?

All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.

Ultimately yes , all view still a view only .
When you write this , there is something going on in your head , is not this intellectual comprehension ?

I'm not saying that nothing should be going on in our heads, just not this kind of thinking. I think it is quite useless after a certain point. Intellectual comprehension is the problem, no? We keep thinking about it. That is intellectual comprehension, over and over, like a broken record. Letting it go is the next step, but most are too afraid to give up their views. Who would they be, then?

All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.

Ultimately yes , all view still a view only .
When you write this , there is something going on in your head , is not this intellectual comprehension ?

I'm not saying that nothing should be going on in our heads, just not this kind of thinking. I think it is quite useless after a certain point. Intellectual comprehension is the problem, no? We keep thinking about it. That is intellectual comprehension, over and over, like a broken record. Letting it go is the next step, but most are too afraid to give up their views. Who would they be, then?

Of course , if you don't understand the dhamma you still can practise . But , normally as a buddhist they will try to understand what is the meaning and how to practise it . The problem is , they seems to be unable to "crack" the "code" yet !
That's why they are not sure if they are trainings Buddha's dhamma without missing something or important point .
For example , the meaning of namarupa , there is no consistency by the expertise or scholars today . Therefore , they are learning Pali , Sanskrit , vedas or brahmanism etc in order for them to have a better understanding of it . But , this is no guarantee also .
If you can't get the true meaning of namarupa , you are unable to understand what is the meaning of Paticcasamuppada , at least not completely .
This is of course looking from Buddhism perspective .

All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.

Ultimately yes , all view still a view only .
When you write this , there is something going on in your head , is not this intellectual comprehension ?

I'm not saying that nothing should be going on in our heads, just not this kind of thinking. I think it is quite useless after a certain point. Intellectual comprehension is the problem, no? We keep thinking about it. That is intellectual comprehension, over and over, like a broken record. Letting it go is the next step, but most are too afraid to give up their views. Who would they be, then?

Of course , if you don't understand the dhamma you still can practise . But , normally as a buddhist they will try to understand what is the meaning and how to practise it . The problem is , they seems to be unable to "crack" the "code" yet !
That's why they are not sure if they are trainings Buddha's dhamma without missing something or important point .
For example , the meaning of namarupa , there is no consistency by the expertise or scholars today . Therefore , they are learning Pali , Sanskrit , vedas or brahmanism etc in order for them to have a better understanding of it . But , this is no guarantee also .
If you can't get the true meaning of namarupa , you are unable to understand what is the meaning of Paticcasamuppada , at least not completely .
This is of course looking from Buddhism perspective .

Exactly. Not being able to crack the code sets up a host of mental activity that keeps the whole shebang going.

Actually , namarupa is mentality materiality , but how to explain in the nidana between vinnana namarupa salayatana chain is the question that many stumped at it .

Indeed. Is it more productive to focus on how feeling leads to craving and aversion, as per the Second Noble Truth?

I would say ignorant leads to craving , therefore , you have to eliminate the darkness before you can severe the attachment .

Now you are back to volitional activity which is nothing but conditioned perceptions themselves. This can only lead back to a separation of subject and object and that is where it all started to begin with, no? The whole cycle re-boots itself.

Indeed. Is it more productive to focus on how feeling leads to craving and aversion, as per the Second Noble Truth?

I would say ignorant leads to craving , therefore , you have to eliminate the darkness before you can severe the attachment .

Now you are back to volitional activity which is nothing but conditioned perceptions themselves. This can only lead back to a separation of subject and object and that is where it all started to begin with, no? The whole cycle re-boots itself.

The problem do not lies in this subject object , it's the non seeing that causes the splitting of the senseness and the others hence activities reinforce themselves further .

I would say ignorant leads to craving , therefore , you have to eliminate the darkness before you can severe the attachment .

Now you are back to volitional activity which is nothing but conditioned perceptions themselves. This can only lead back to a separation of subject and object and that is where it all started to begin with, no? The whole cycle re-boots itself.

The problem do not lies in this subject object , it's the non seeing that causes the splitting of the senseness and the others hence activities reinforce themselves further .

You said 'you have to eliminate the darkness before you can severe the attachment'. So I said volitional activity (to eliminate/sever) is within the same sphere that is using perception. How can you 'see' anything but perceptions? That apparatus itself is conditioned to construct an image of what is being seen. I don't see any apparatus that can 'watch' this that is not part of this activity.

If it is as you say that non-seeing causes the split, it doesn't make sense. You are seeing that there is a split. What is 'non-seeing'? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Have you been able to rectify this split by any means, so far? I think not. Why? Because there is nothing within our toolbox that can rectify this. To me, this is the beginning of disenchantment, dispassion, and the letting go of volitional activity like 'will', trying to understand, and seeking in general.

Now you are back to volitional activity which is nothing but conditioned perceptions themselves. This can only lead back to a separation of subject and object and that is where it all started to begin with, no? The whole cycle re-boots itself.

The problem do not lies in this subject object , it's the non seeing that causes the splitting of the senseness and the others hence activities reinforce themselves further .

You said 'you have to eliminate the darkness before you can severe the attachment'. So I said volitional activity (to eliminate/sever) is within the same sphere that is using perception. How can you 'see' anything but perceptions? That apparatus itself is conditioned to construct an image of what is being seen. I don't see any apparatus that can 'watch' this that is not part of this activity.

If it is as you say that non-seeing causes the split, it doesn't make sense. You are seeing that there is a split. What is 'non-seeing'? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Have you been able to rectify this split by any means, so far? I think not. Why? Because there is nothing within our toolbox that can rectify this. To me, this is the beginning of disenchantment, dispassion, and the letting go of volitional activity like 'will', trying to understand, and seeking in general.

You are not required to rectify it because that it is something false , seeing itself is rectification . Seeing itself is elimination . It is two fold , first there is a will , once the motor is on you are on autopilot . You don't need other tool . The process of un-conditioning may take you quite some time .
Or you can call it non doing .

Last edited by James Tan on Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why? Because there is nothing within our toolbox that can rectify this. To me, this is the beginning of disenchantment, dispassion, and the letting go of volitional activity like 'will', trying to understand, and seeking in general.

I find this a puzzling comment, since the suttas clearly provide a "toolbox", including satipatthana and vipassana, developing insight into the 3 marks, etc. And in the suttas it is insight which leads to dispassion and letting go.

I agree that we cannot think ourselves out of ignorance, but that is a separate matter.